Reading Between Lines and Beyond Scopes
With increased clashes between sentiments, claims and laws, Tulica Bhattacharya reporting from the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) analyses the role of historical relevance and its ‘scope’.
The United Nation (UN), as the name suggests, withholds the image of being a symbolic representative of unity. Documents and decisions in the UN are considered as the final verdict. On one hand, the UN mothers its members with adequate support, aid and justice while on the other, the child tends to disobey its regulations and look past them. Time and again, powerful nations choose to disregard the UN laws by stating that issues at hand are beyond its scope and the nation does not expect the organisation to understand its complexity. The UN then faces gruesome conflicts and unrest as it struggles to tie the historical threads to the future.
Since 1902, People’s Republic of China (China), has had a hard time keeping the South China Sea archipelago under its jurisdiction. In an erratic state of win and loss, the Chinese ruler (whether monarch or a government) has faced constant attacks resulting in overruling and reoccupation of the islands. Despite the island being located further from the shore, China, alongside 167 other countries signed the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on 10 December 1982.
The interwoven claims and overlapping regions of the bordering countries of the South China Sea led to intense conflicts and widening disparities between the nations. Furthermore, severely hampering the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)’s mutual understandings, the nations refused to abide by the laws set by UNCLOS. So far, the Chinese government used a “beyond the scope of the convention” wild card to explain its historical claims. Thus, the Chinese claims make no sense on paper. Its legality is irrelevant since it is unable to provide fixed numbers to reason its encroachment. However, like a baby clinging onto its toy, China struggles to compromise in the territorial conflict. At the same time, countries such as the Republic of Philippines, who was historically dormant for the untapped resources of the sea, suddenly woke up in times of reward collection. Legally speaking, China is incorrect in its doings and has made too generous a claim in the region. Historically speaking, the Philippines invaded the islands, much against the UN laws. Which child must the mother comfort?
Another example is the UN Partition Plan adopted on 29 November 1947 by the UN General Assembly. The plan was an outlined layout of the partitioned Mandatory Palestine set to be implemented as soon as the British Mandate would come to its end. This plan was formulated once the Jewish community decided to return to its mainland after its exile in 586 BC. Yet again, on the basis of historical relevance that was beyond the scope of residential rights, the Palestinian region was forcefully divided. As soon as the Resolution was passed, a civil war broke out which resulted in the shrinking of the Palestinian region and dignity. Today, while the State of Israel is a well-reckoned member of the UN and sustains the reputation of a powerful nation, the Palestine is refused legitimate recognition and lives under constant fear and vigilance of Israel.
The concept of “beyond the scope” of a law or convention fundamentally implies that simple laws and directions cannot govern the severity of a given situation. In other words, cold hearted statements would not necessarily be able to cover all aspects of the matter. A conflict arises when both sides disagree to an ideology. However, a conflict persists when either sides have well-founded reasoning. Though the UN enlists an incessant set of rules and regulations, it lacks a sentimental approach. Often harping on this absence, many disputes (such as that in South China Sea) result in heightened tensions and collapsing brotherhoods. Thus, the question arises, could these laws see beyond its own scope?
